McLeans' X factor

[TEConnor]

So the topic seems to have gone into how much the pivot generates overall club head speed, but in my understanding that is not really what is being argued for with the X-factor. I don't think the X-factor is trying to claim that it is the key contributor to overall club head speed. Instead it is trying to explain the difference in distances between shorter and longer hitters. In other words, it's not trying to say that 70% of club head speed is being generated due to the X-factor, but that it may be the cause for ~25% of the difference between a longer and shorter hitter. This is what was found scientifically in the paper that has been discusses extensively in this thread that was published in the Journal of Sports Science. The paper found a very significant correlation between the increases in ball speeds between shorter and longer hitters with the X-factor stretch. This does not prove a causal relationship but is strong evidence that there might be one. More studies need to be carried out to really deduce the causal relationship. However, the X-factor stretch is more than just pseudoscientific fluff.

 

 

Another view:

 

 

Bejay: I know this guy is a pro, and he seems passionate and very interesting AND he could beat me like a dog on the golf course, but still and all, that swing is nothing special.

 

What I don't get about this guy is that he claims to channel the spirit of Hogan for the masses, and yet he picks the club up steep as all get out on the backswing, stops his core rotating on the throughswing, and flips at the ball with his hands. Nothing like Hogan at all. So why all the references to Hogan when any novice could see that his swing bears ZERO resemblance to Hogan's? It makes no sense.

 

I'll tell you what...that guy is KING of the hand gestures! If I ever decide to teach this little game, I better work on my arsenal of emotive gestures.

 

Agree with you Rank, that is one flippy swing. Kind of seemed like he didn't do any of the things you would expect from all the Hogan reference. What would Johnny Miller say?

 

Tim

[rankoutsider]

he would say "that swing would make Hogan puke." unfortunately, he would then take it back. i think he should have stuck with the comment myself, although i love Craig Parry. More heart in that guy than three tour players, in my humble opinion.

 

this youtube guy does look to me sincere and very charismatic. for those who don't know it, Richmond Hill, ON has to be one of the wealthiest municiplalities in Canada, so the guy is well positioned as the pro there. top 25 on score golf's list of canadian teachers is a bit of a kiss your sister kind of thing. anyway, there is so little to recommend that swing it isn't worth going on about.

 

cheers,

rank

 

and Tim, I forgot to say that your above (201) is very eye-opening and well thought out. Lots to ponder in a short paragraph. I want to give that one more thought. You might be well on your way to teaching this game.

[mizuno67]

that guy is quite funny has some great ideas but the bottom line is to swing like Hogan you need to be flexible strong torso muscles athletic etc simple he just can't do what hogan did and most people can't

[slicefixer]

If someone wants to become a great ball striker then look no further than what the clubface does through impact, the way it approaches the ball, contacts it and moves away. The rest does not matter much as many of the greatest ball strikers have had all sorts of different swings but conform to what happens through impact.

 

 

That's HOW I learned whatever it is that I know........it came from 100% studying "9 to 3" in the downswing......the "impact zone".......then working BACKWARDS a FRAME AT A TIME to figure out HOW that player got to where they did in the impact zone......"lots of patterns" emerged, but, some "common denominators" did to....... :)

[slicefixer]

He is still using his lower body as a pivot. Legs and feet are still creating leverage with ground. FUrtherst thing from hands and arms.

 

 

yep, 100%........

 

But off the point being made. The point was that the main clubhead speed generators in the swing are the arms and hands, that the large muscles of the lower body assist but very little. This is why I consider the X factor a flawed concept and another golfing myth that if you listen to enough without thinking it through you start to believe it.

 

If someone wants to become a great ball striker then look no further than what the clubface does through impact, the way it approaches the ball, contacts it and moves away. The rest does not matter much as many of the greatest ball strikers have had all sorts of different swings but conform to what happens through impact.

 

 

Yes, but there are 3 different "releases" that I've observed with each having it's own common denominators......You MAKE it square up (hitting) or you ALLOW "physics" to square it up (the other two..."pulling"/"swinging".... :) )

 

Yes that is correct but does not change my point. How you manipulate your body and the clubshaft is not relevant, what is relevant is how the clubface approaches, contacts then leaves the ball. Put your focus on this and the rest will take care of it's self.

 

If you were hitting a nail with a hammer you would not focus on how your limbs or joints propelled the hammer to the nail. You would not hit the nail with an out to in or in to out blow you would swing the hammer with an in to square swing that allowed the face to strike the nail correctly. If you made bad impact with the nail you would not start considering what position your elbow, wrist or shoulder was taking, you would focus on the nail and take another swing only concerning yourself with what happened in the impact area.

 

Golf is not so complicated if we can release the clutter.

 

 

Aaaaaagh, the ole' hammer......sounds like ole' Peter "push tha' hammer" Croker.......Bejay, I've probably hammered as many nails as any person who's NOT a contractor.......my dad and I built deer stands, duck blinds, wooden bridges, even a 30' - 50' room at our hunting camp so I know what "swinging a hammer" feels like...........and it is swinging and not pushing as Croker would have ya' believe..... I also got in a bit of a debate with him in the bar @ Morningside International Golf Club in BC......Croker was trying to tell us that "Hogan pushed a hammer"........nope........but, I did give his method a chance as I'm NOT "close minded".......Sandy, the club pro at Morningside at the time, was kind enough to give me about a 2 hour clinic on the virtues of Croker's method.......at the time Croker called it "Natural Golf," but, they were forced to change the name due to the Moe Norman golf swing based "Natural Golf"........Anyway, Sandy explained the deal to me in great detail.......it was nothing more than old school "hitting" and wasn't even in the vicinity of what Mr. Hogan did within' his golf swing.........NOT even close.......in fact, it was so far off of what Mr. Hogan did that even Sandy had to admit that Croker was simply "wrong" as I had the VIDEO footage to PROVE it..........

 

BTW, one of my BEST "props" that I use to teach the correct FEEL of a great golf swing is a rubber mallet/sledge with a hole drilled it with a shaft inserted in it...........I have people grip and set up just like a golf club.........then they make a backswing and I have them "hammer" an imaginary railroad spike into an actual piece of crosstie......unreal how much a person's "golf swing" improves on video when doing this.........I"ve seen some players who had TERRIBLE golf swings simply change their set up a bit and "hammer the railroad spike into the lil' piece of crosstie" and a very good golf swing "emerges"....... :D

 

Now, as to your point above, the "angles" from which the clubhead attacks the ball are determined by numerous things starting with your fundamentals.....grip, posture, ball position, stance ALL affect the manner in which a person PIVOTS......which then affects the way the arms REACT (POOR angles = IMPROPER PIVOT = ARM manipulation).....which then affects the angles/plane/path of the clubhead........hell, I could go on and on and on and on........but, the gist of the deal is this, your correct in that the legs/lower body are NOT a very good way of creating "power" as you'll lose consistency/accuracy in the process......but, the legs/lower body are a BIG part of a proper PIVOT in that they "support" the motion and without them you'd be relegated to nothing but arms and if that occurs your screwed...... :D

 

Now, in the "Old School" golf swing the legs were VERY active as they had to be in order to create the proper angles at impact which resulted from the advice "don't move your head"(also "swing inside-out to right field"....also "turn that toe to the ground".....also "roll those wrists", etc. etc. etc.).......you can't turn wind into your right side IF the head is like a block of cement......you keep it dead still and you WILL "stack and tilt" and when that happens a drive of the lower body/hip area WILL be required to "hit the proper impact angles" (ie. the lower spine WILL have to work forward and the upper spine will have to work backwards, UNLESS you want to release more or less with nothing more than your right arm......which is NOT a very effective way of squaring the face for MOST people IMOP...)

 

Now, with the "Modern" golf swing the legs are MUCH "quieter" and the core is a LOT more active.......in effect "the INSIDE is swinging the OUTSIDE"........meaning the CORE is in charge and the arms/hands are REACTING........it's the EXACT opposite with the "Old School" golf swing..........they are VERY different in every single frame of footage until you get in the "impact zone" from a face on view and then the "body angles" are almost exact.......but that's the ONLY "place" you'll see a similarity.........

 

Anyway, in conclusion, I'm almost positive I understand what your trying to "say" and I agree to an extent......probably almost totally IF my understanding of your premise is correct.....I haven't read the entire thread yet, but, I will later tonight and post again....... :D

[Veritas]

So the topic seems to have gone into how much the pivot generates overall club head speed, but in my understanding that is not really what is being argued for with the X-factor. I don't think the X-factor is trying to claim that it is the key contributor to overall club head speed. Instead it is trying to explain the difference in distances between shorter and longer hitters. In other words, it's not trying to say that 70% of club head speed is being generated due to the X-factor, but that it may be the cause for ~25% of the difference between a longer and shorter hitter. This is what was found scientifically in the paper that has been discusses extensively in this thread that was published in the Journal of Sports Science. The paper found a very significant correlation between the increases in ball speeds between shorter and longer hitters with the X-factor stretch. This does not prove a causal relationship but is strong evidence that there might be one. More studies need to be carried out to really deduce the causal relationship. However, the X-factor stretch is more than just pseudoscientific fluff.

 

 

Another view:

 

 

The thing is that nothing that he says explains the correlation between X-factor and club head speed. The paper found that there was no correlation with either upper torso rotation or lower torso rotation alone but found that the difference between these two (X-factor) is what correlated with club head speed. If it was simply the moving the body out of the way as the pro seems to be claiming, then upper torso rotation would have correlated with increases in club head speed, but it did not. The X-factor correlation is real, was studied by scientists at UNC, and made it into a peer reviewed journal. So it has undergone some serious scrutiny and passed.

 

Now what I am not advocating is that the X-factor should be taught or really anything for that matter. I just don't know nearly enough about the swing. I'm mostly just interested in the biomechanics and how the swing works. So I find it interesting that this correlation exists, but have no opinion on how this should or should not be incorporated into teaching the golf swing. But I also don't think it should be dismissed either.

[slicefixer]

So the topic seems to have gone into how much the pivot generates overall club head speed, but in my understanding that is not really what is being argued for with the X-factor. I don't think the X-factor is trying to claim that it is the key contributor to overall club head speed. Instead it is trying to explain the difference in distances between shorter and longer hitters. In other words, it's not trying to say that 70% of club head speed is being generated due to the X-factor, but that it may be the cause for ~25% of the difference between a longer and shorter hitter. This is what was found scientifically in the paper that has been discusses extensively in this thread that was published in the Journal of Sports Science. The paper found a very significant correlation between the increases in ball speeds between shorter and longer hitters with the X-factor stretch. This does not prove a causal relationship but is strong evidence that there might be one. More studies need to be carried out to really deduce the causal relationship. However, the X-factor stretch is more than just pseudoscientific fluff.

 

 

Another view:

 

 

 

That guy has a LOT of Mr. Hogan's swing figured out........he's the best I've seen for about the first 1/2......he has the downswing all fouled up in that he says it's occurring with the RIGHT side, and it isn't.....but, he's as close as anyone I've seen to date.......IMOP......he's a helluva' LOT cloer than some of the "big names" who claim to teach the "Hogan swing".......THAT I CAN tell you 100%......:)

[Bejay]

If someone wants to become a great ball striker then look no further than what the clubface does through impact, the way it approaches the ball, contacts it and moves away. The rest does not matter much as many of the greatest ball strikers have had all sorts of different swings but conform to what happens through impact.

 

 

That's HOW I learned whatever it is that I know........it came from 100% studying "9 to 3" in the downswing......the "impact zone".......then working BACKWARDS a FRAME AT A TIME to figure out HOW that player got to where they did in the impact zone......"lots of patterns" emerged, but, some "common denominators" did to....... :)

 

Slicefixer

 

I am new to this forum but your reputation goes before you, I have heard in other forums people commenting on your ability. I can now see why.

 

I honestly believe that if you can focus on the impact zone in that the clubface strikes the ball with the correct downward angle on the correct swingpath and such that the face is whipped through the ball from open to closed, then practice these skills until your hands bleed everything else will fall into place. The fine tuning can be added later when your ball striking has become repeatable.

 

For inspiration I need look no further than the great Moe Norman.

[slicefixer]

If someone wants to become a great ball striker then look no further than what the clubface does through impact, the way it approaches the ball, contacts it and moves away. The rest does not matter much as many of the greatest ball strikers have had all sorts of different swings but conform to what happens through impact.

 

 

That's HOW I learned whatever it is that I know........it came from 100% studying "9 to 3" in the downswing......the "impact zone".......then working BACKWARDS a FRAME AT A TIME to figure out HOW that player got to where they did in the impact zone......"lots of patterns" emerged, but, some "common denominators" did to....... :)

 

Slicefixer

 

I am new to this forum but your reputation goes before you, I have heard in other forums people commenting on your ability. I can now see why.

 

I honestly believe that if you can focus on the impact zone in that the clubface strikes the ball with the correct downward angle on the correct swingpath and such that the face is whipped through the ball from open to closed, then practice these skills until your hands bleed everything else will fall into place. The fine tuning can be added later when your ball striking has become repeatable.

 

For inspiration I need look no further than the great Moe Norman.

 

 

Thanks Bejay...... That's exactly how I base a golf swing........fundamentals FIRST.......THEN the "impact zone".....THEN the "full swing"........

[Billydylan]

WOW , I thought i was a golf nut until i came on this site and read this thread :)

[Veritas]

So I went to the Orthopaedic Research Society meeting in San Francisco 2 weeks ago and went to a talk that pertained to this thread and decided I would duck out on the talk that related to my research (you can only handle so many talks on the IVD). I have been meaning to post this for a little bit now. For part of the study they tested muscle force production under both static and dynamic stretch and tested the force output. What they saw was that the force generated by the muscle both increased when stretched dynamically over static stretch and also had a dependence on the length the muscle was stretched (longer - more force, up to a point). This is due to the different types of receptors that are activated under the different conditions. Each receptor reacts to different types of stimulus, low strain, high strain, and rate of strain. The dynamic longer stretch allows for more receptors to be activated and produce greater forces. Just thought I would share this as more evidence on how the dynamic x-factor could produce greater club head speeds. That is all.

[thefuture37]

The original Mclean X-factor is useful for ultra-flexible players like Tiger and the young tour players today. If Tiger made a backswing with no hip restriction(like Snead) his backswing would be close to 300 degrees. As for whether it adds power, who knows and who cares. For flexible people it may help keep them on plane, which equates to more solid contact.

[KevCarter]

So I went to the Orthopaedic Research Society meeting in San Francisco 2 weeks ago and went to a talk that pertained to this thread and decided I would duck out on the talk that related to my research (you can only handle so many talks on the IVD). I have been meaning to post this for a little bit now. For part of the study they tested muscle force production under both static and dynamic stretch and tested the force output. What they saw was that the force generated by the muscle both increased when stretched dynamically over static stretch and also had a dependence on the length the muscle was stretched (longer - more force, up to a point). This is due to the different types of receptors that are activated under the different conditions. Each receptor reacts to different types of stimulus, low strain, high strain, and rate of strain. The dynamic longer stretch allows for more receptors to be activated and produce greater forces. Just thought I would share this as more evidence on how the dynamic x-factor could produce greater club head speeds. That is all.

 

rdbivyleagun,

 

I believe there is some great information here, but I can't understand it. Is there any chance you could please put it into a little more of a layman's type post for idiot's like me? I would appreciate it very much.

 

Thank you Sir,

Kevin

[Redhaze737]

WOW , I thought i was a golf nut until i came on this site and read this thread ;)

 

 

You are so right. I never knew so many people knew so much about the golf swing. I really appreciate everyone who posts in these threads. I look back 30 years when I started golf and remember the magazine saying you have to use your legs. "Look at how large Jack Nicklaus's thighs are. That's why he can hit it so far." Of course they never said exactly how you were supposed to use your legs. Now, after a 16 year layoff I'm 'relearning' the golf swing and trying like all hell to get rid of a hip slide that I learned by 'using my legs.' At my age that hip slide is a back killer. I'm still trying to get my hips to rotate the way they should. My thanks to all. Good fun.

[Veritas]

So I went to the Orthopaedic Research Society meeting in San Francisco 2 weeks ago and went to a talk that pertained to this thread and decided I would duck out on the talk that related to my research (you can only handle so many talks on the IVD). I have been meaning to post this for a little bit now. For part of the study they tested muscle force production under both static and dynamic stretch and tested the force output. What they saw was that the force generated by the muscle both increased when stretched dynamically over static stretch and also had a dependence on the length the muscle was stretched (longer - more force, up to a point). This is due to the different types of receptors that are activated under the different conditions. Each receptor reacts to different types of stimulus, low strain, high strain, and rate of strain. The dynamic longer stretch allows for more receptors to be activated and produce greater forces. Just thought I would share this as more evidence on how the dynamic x-factor could produce greater club head speeds. That is all.

 

rdbivyleagun,

 

I believe there is some great information here, but I can't understand it. Is there any chance you could please put it into a little more of a layman's type post for idiot's like me? I would appreciate it very much.

 

Thank you Sir,

Kevin

 

Sorry, I used too much jargon. Basically the study had 2 main points. The first point was that the more you stretch the muscle, the more force the muscle will produce when in contracts. This levels off and begins to diminish slightly though as you get to really large amounts of stretch. The second point was that how this stretch is performed matters as well. If you stretch a muscle and hold it in a position for a bit of time (static) and then allow it to contract you will get less force production than if you allow it to stretch and then immediately allow it to contract with no hold (dynamic). The receptor stuff is just describing why this happens. Is this easier to understand? If not I can take another stab at it.

[KevCarter]

So I went to the Orthopaedic Research Society meeting in San Francisco 2 weeks ago and went to a talk that pertained to this thread and decided I would duck out on the talk that related to my research (you can only handle so many talks on the IVD). I have been meaning to post this for a little bit now. For part of the study they tested muscle force production under both static and dynamic stretch and tested the force output. What they saw was that the force generated by the muscle both increased when stretched dynamically over static stretch and also had a dependence on the length the muscle was stretched (longer - more force, up to a point). This is due to the different types of receptors that are activated under the different conditions. Each receptor reacts to different types of stimulus, low strain, high strain, and rate of strain. The dynamic longer stretch allows for more receptors to be activated and produce greater forces. Just thought I would share this as more evidence on how the dynamic x-factor could produce greater club head speeds. That is all.

 

rdbivyleagun,

 

I believe there is some great information here, but I can't understand it. Is there any chance you could please put it into a little more of a layman's type post for idiot's like me? I would appreciate it very much.

 

Thank you Sir,

Kevin

 

Sorry, I used too much jargon. Basically the study had 2 main points. The first point was that the more you stretch the muscle, the more force the muscle will produce when in contracts. This levels off and begins to diminish slightly though as you get to really large amounts of stretch. The second point was that how this stretch is performed matters as well. If you stretch a muscle and hold it in a position for a bit of time (static) and then allow it to contract you will get less force production than if you allow it to stretch and then immediately allow it to contract with no hold (dynamic). The receptor stuff is just describing why this happens. Is this easier to understand? If not I can take another stab at it.

 

You bet,

 

Thanks again!

 

Kevin

[stryper]

If you stretch a muscle and hold it in a position for a bit of time (static) and then allow it to contract you will get less force production than if you allow it to stretch and then immediately allow it to contract with no hold (dynamic)...Is this easier to understand? If not I can take another stab at it.

Take one more stab...are you basically saying that research shows that a quicker transition at the top, rather than a leisurely set/pause, is the way to go?

[Veritas]

If you stretch a muscle and hold it in a position for a bit of time (static) and then allow it to contract you will get less force production than if you allow it to stretch and then immediately allow it to contract with no hold (dynamic)...Is this easier to understand? If not I can take another stab at it.

Take one more stab...are you basically saying that research shows that a quicker transition at the top, rather than a leisurely set/pause, is the way to go?

 

It's possible but I wouldn't, myself, venture too much speculation into what is good for the golf swing though. As I've stated a couple of times in the thread, I don't know much about the golf swing, as I'm pretty new to golf. I'm just applying my biomechanics background to the questions that have been posed in this thread. Mostly, what I'm suggesting is that the first point stated above is a possible mechanism for why there is a correlation between X-factor stretch and club head speed.

 

The second point has its own implications. I would think that even if you set at the top of the swing but started your hips first that you would still result in a dynamic activation of the muscle due to the increased stretch you would see as your hips begin to rotate first. I would be interested in the opinions of the swing experts.

[KevCarter]

If you stretch a muscle and hold it in a position for a bit of time (static) and then allow it to contract you will get less force production than if you allow it to stretch and then immediately allow it to contract with no hold (dynamic)...Is this easier to understand? If not I can take another stab at it.

Take one more stab...are you basically saying that research shows that a quicker transition at the top, rather than a leisurely set/pause, is the way to go?

 

It's possible but I wouldn't, myself, venture too much speculation into what is good for the golf swing though. As I've stated a couple of times in the thread, I don't know much about the golf swing, as I'm pretty new to golf. I'm just applying my biomechanics background to the questions that have been posed in this thread. Mostly, what I'm suggesting is that the first point stated above is a possible mechanism for why there is a correlation between X-factor stretch and club head speed.

 

The second point has its own implications. I would think that even if you set at the top of the swing but started your hips first that you would still result in a dynamic activation of the muscle due to the increased stretch you would see as your hips begin to rotate first. I would be interested in the opinions of the swing experts.

 

Hey, Homer Kelley was basically a beginner when he started his quest to learn the golf swing, and years later wrote what is arguably one of the best text books for the game ever written.

 

I believe your responses in this thread to be very valuable!

 

Kevin

[dso1986]

i hate you jim mclean, 5 years of wasted golf, from restricting my hip turn. i hate you so much.

[SunkTheBirdie]

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

That guy has a LOT of Mr. Hogan's swing figured out........he's the best I've seen for about the first 1/2......he has the downswing all fouled up in that he says it's occurring with the RIGHT side, and it isn't.....but, he's as close as anyone I've seen to date.......IMOP......he's a helluva' LOT cloer than some of the "big names" who claim to teach the "Hogan swing".......THAT I CAN tell you 100%......

 

Slicefixer on Clement ! :) Classic.

[Pinsplitter59]

"Torsion occurs when an object, such as a bar with a cylindrical or square cross section (as shown in the figure), is twisted. The twisting force acting on the object is known as torque, and the resulting stress is known as Shear stress. If the object undergoes deformation as a result of and in the direction of the application of the force, the resulting deflection is known as Strain."
[attachment=1520929:Hogan_torque_05.jpg]
I wonder if its not about individual muscles and what they do but more about seeing the core as a unit which is put into torque. Think of a stiff but flexible thing like a rectangular piece of polycarbonate.
it has all the same internal structure, when you hold one end and twist the top around and let go it snaps "closed" very hard and fast. add two ball joints and two levers from a top corner and and you have very very high speed at the outside.

[JPGolf FL]

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

That guy has a LOT of Mr. Hogan's swing figured out........he's the best I've seen for about the first 1/2......he has the downswing all fouled up in that he says it's occurring with the RIGHT side, and it isn't.....but, he's as close as anyone I've seen to date.......IMOP......he's a helluva' LOT cloer than some of the "big names" who claim to teach the "Hogan swing".......THAT I CAN tell you 100%......

 

Slicefixer on Clement ! :) Classic.

 

Cracks me up to see people on here(not necessarily SF) talk about how clement is flipping and such. Clement knows exactly what he is talking about. I'm not sure if SF was talking about Shawn's expl of the right hip in the downswing but Shawn is absolutely right about that. Anyone with eyes can watch hogan and see for themself. I think people are expecting "the hogan swing" when they open the video...... The video is not called the hogan swing..... It's the hogan power MOVE. It is a key move in hogans swing. Trying to copy a swing is fools gold. Copying fundamental, key moves in a swing and allowing YOUR body to work in its own way is treasure.

[PlayinThru]

In the earlier debate, Points was very clear that the X-Factor is a measurable [b]correlation[/b] between turn and speed/distance/power. It's not simply a recipe to hit the ball a long way. The evidence is irrefutable.

Question for Points (or anyone else):

In an attempt to greaten one's X-Factor, is it possible to overdo it?

I feel that in the past, I have sacrificed things such as tempo, balance, swing plane, and center-faced contact by trying to increase my turn or X-Factor. I am a much better ball striker/player after abandoning that concept and focusing on other swing ideas. Perhaps my X-Factor has increased unknowingly as a result of other improvements.

I guess I'm trying to say that deliberately focusing on improving my X-Factor (by increasing my shoulder turn and limiting hip turn) didn't work for me, and created problems that took a long time to overcome. McClean's green book on drills kept me from quitting the game and got me back on track. I realize now that the X-Factor was never meant to be a "How to", or a method, but rather an observation.

[mikpga]

Holy trip back in time Batman!

[SunkTheBirdie]

[quote name='JeffMann' timestamp='1197514097' post='822371']
[size=4]I have changed my thinking in the past year. I now think that the idea of a X-factor is junk science. [/size]
[/quote]
What a classic thread !!!
Love it.
Bring back the Mann.

[SunkTheBirdie]

[size=4][quote name='dso1986' timestamp='1307084358' post='3281710'][/size]
i hate you jim mclean, 5 years of wasted golf, from restricting my hip turn. i hate you so much. [/quote]
Hate seems strong ... but ... how do I say it ...
Let's just say "I'm not actively pursuing signing up for private lessons with McLean at this time".

I don't blame McLean himself. Golf is hard to teach and learn for so many reasons.

To me, for my 2013 season, it's all about impact. I want a nice reliable impact. I'll gladly take some short rights vs. my lifelong Long and Left with a sprinkle of blocks.